Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
An Inconvenient Truth
- Thread starter Sassy69
- Start date
T
The Shadow
Guest
the title reminds me of my current favorite saying that "some ignorance is bulletproof"
chewyxrage
New member
I read that it really explained global warming in an easy-for-any-dumbass-to-understand format.
Sassy69
New member
Had to dig this up -- I gave my mom a pile of books I've read over the last year (we trade books) and among them was Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" -- a novel that takes the other view re: global warming and other extreme climate change hysteria -- proposes the idea that selective cherry picking of data can indeed produce a state of fear, which, history has proven for centuries, is the best way to control a population.
And I'm happy to say my mom now questions the stuff in "An Inconvenient Truth". I don't think you can make a blanket statement that theree are no climate effects that we are involved w/, but don't just throw out your common sense when it comes to what the media and other propagandists are up to.
And I'm happy to say my mom now questions the stuff in "An Inconvenient Truth". I don't think you can make a blanket statement that theree are no climate effects that we are involved w/, but don't just throw out your common sense when it comes to what the media and other propagandists are up to.
deco
New member
what was wrong with it? just talkin about global warming and god damn it I dont know if its global warming or not but something is causing the country where i was born in become very very very warm durnig summer times. Warm enaugh to kill people and warm enaugh to have my dad fall asleep in a bathtub filled with cold water instead of his bed.
im on in my early 20s and ive seen many countries and states ive lived in change their climate significantly
im on in my early 20s and ive seen many countries and states ive lived in change their climate significantly
I saw it. I thought it was alright. I also did a little checking on the number of studies and found that was right about it. The scan I did supports his statements (most of them agree that people are to blame).
At the end of the day, the thing that changed my mind about the whole thing is..."What if he's right?"
When I was single, I couldn't care less if the world was going to hell in a hand basket. Now, it's different. If he's right, then I'm harming the world that my kids will occupy. I just cant' feel good about that.
Sure, I may be wrong...but what if he's right? I don't blame you or anyone like you.
You don't really have anything to lose if he's right. Like I said, when I was single and w/o kids, I could of burned tires, hunted endangered species and not given a shit.
Besides, any time there's a new "thing" (like ecologically friendly power supplies), there's always an opportunity to get to market before anyone else does.
At the end of the day, the thing that changed my mind about the whole thing is..."What if he's right?"
When I was single, I couldn't care less if the world was going to hell in a hand basket. Now, it's different. If he's right, then I'm harming the world that my kids will occupy. I just cant' feel good about that.
Sure, I may be wrong...but what if he's right? I don't blame you or anyone like you.
You don't really have anything to lose if he's right. Like I said, when I was single and w/o kids, I could of burned tires, hunted endangered species and not given a shit.
Besides, any time there's a new "thing" (like ecologically friendly power supplies), there's always an opportunity to get to market before anyone else does.
Extra_Strong
Well-known member
I did not Realize that some people were in complete denial about global warming before i saw this. I mean i agree i am not setting around worrying about it either.. but some think it is just made up ha ha .. like Astronauts never landed on the mood kinda deal..
Lao Tzu
New member
Sassy69 said:
Nonetheless, if the debate is tens of thousands of climate scientists vs. a handful of scientific skeptics and radical right wingers who think environmentalism is 'loony' then the debate itself is skewed. Common sense plays a role in figuring out which side of the debate to fall on in that situation as well. The latest IPCC report, written & reviewed by 4,000 international climate scientists finds a 90% chance that we humans are causing global warming.
Al Gore's movie is a worst case scenario, and I doubt it'll ever get that bad (we can always engineer the environment to reflect the sun's rays if things get too bad). But all in all it was a good movie.
sardonicone
New member
It's sheer ignorance to try and state that the Earth isn't warming up.
It's even worse if one tries to state that the industrialization of mankind had nothing to do with it.
Now, saying it's our entire fault though, that's just as ignorant.
It's even worse if one tries to state that the industrialization of mankind had nothing to do with it.
Now, saying it's our entire fault though, that's just as ignorant.
H
heatherrae
Guest
Al Gore is right. Global warming was always his hot issue. This isn't the first time he brought it up.
redguru
New member
Lao Tzu said:
tens of thousands of climate scientists? Where are all these experts in climatology getting thier degrees? Is that a BS or BA? Also, man's influence on the atmosphere this year is less than Mount Pinataubu (sic) was during its last eruption. I've read the research, and Sassy is right, the conclusions cherry pick data to meet thier objectives. Throw the Scientific method out the door and tailor your work to get you a larger grant next year?
State of Fear is a good book. As well as the papers about the global cooling threat in the 70s. I don't doubt that some of it is questionable with it's causality. But again, I can't afford to be wrong.
Kids. Sometimes, they make me wish I was still single. Like when they use my PCs DVD player as a toaster.
Kids. Sometimes, they make me wish I was still single. Like when they use my PCs DVD player as a toaster.
redguru
New member
EnderJE said:
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml
Read that article and point out any logical fallacy you see.
They say that the Sun's increase in brightness cannot totally count for the increase in the Earth's temperature. Then they deduce that it must be man making up the difference without identifying the other variables in the study until they caveat at the end.
redguru
New member
I'm not saying that the earth isn't warming and we shouldn't take a cautious posture as to how we affest the environment. What I do disagree with is the relatively young science of climatology claiming they know the answers when they haven't even identified all the variables in the equation yet. Politicians and the media use the data to fear-monger. Just as liberals accuse republicans of fear-mongering when it comes to terrorism. In both cases it fits an agenda.
myway
Banned
It has been studied....over...and over..... I have not heard of a scientist who did not think of global warming as a problem. I liked hearing a politician talk about the problem being ignored by other politicians. I liked hearing Gore talk about how shocked he was when he realized that congress did not care.
test boy ii
New member
One of the most accurate ways to determine if someone is a Republican is to find out if they give a damn about the environment.
They don't.
Then find out if they are really into money.
They are.
Then find out if they think every war we have ever fought was a good one and that we were totally in the right vs the other side being totally in the wrong.
They do.
But we need them to cancel out the extreme left wing who is also whack.
They don't.
Then find out if they are really into money.
They are.
Then find out if they think every war we have ever fought was a good one and that we were totally in the right vs the other side being totally in the wrong.
They do.
But we need them to cancel out the extreme left wing who is also whack.
Sassy69
New member
The reason Congress doesn't "care" is because they all get nice big fat donations from oil companies. Oil lobbyists aren't going to encourage fuel sources that put them out of business.
Nancy Pelosi's biggest campaign contributor is Occidental Oil.. She's the damn speaker of the house.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00007360&cycle=2006
Oh well, I'm sure you could build all sorts of arguments for / agin. I think ultimately there isn't a move towards "green" in a big way because of the economics involved. There's so much more to it than "Just Bush" or whatever.
But I don't know that Al Gore accomplishes much by scaring the shit out of people, and then a book like "State of Fear" then makes them question the validity of the stuff in the movie as if it were just more of the Michael Moorecheeseburger propaganda.
Nancy Pelosi's biggest campaign contributor is Occidental Oil.. She's the damn speaker of the house.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00007360&cycle=2006
Oh well, I'm sure you could build all sorts of arguments for / agin. I think ultimately there isn't a move towards "green" in a big way because of the economics involved. There's so much more to it than "Just Bush" or whatever.
But I don't know that Al Gore accomplishes much by scaring the shit out of people, and then a book like "State of Fear" then makes them question the validity of the stuff in the movie as if it were just more of the Michael Moorecheeseburger propaganda.
test boy ii
New member
Give me $5000 and I'll do a study to prove almost anything you want.
Seriously.
Seriously.
If it's not humans that are causing the rise in CO2 levels - which is the biggest factor in the rise in temperature - then what is it? People can point out natural causes of large CO2 emissions all over the planet - and they would be right - but those causes have been there for hundreds of thousands of years with no effect.
If a global warming "scare" does anything, it will at least push us to develop/research other fuel sources. Since we don't have an unlimited amount of oil at our disposal, it can only be a good thing.
If a global warming "scare" does anything, it will at least push us to develop/research other fuel sources. Since we don't have an unlimited amount of oil at our disposal, it can only be a good thing.
Lao Tzu
New member
redguru said:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
I picked five US names at random and looked up some data on them.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_AuthorList_2005-11-03.pdf
Tom karl - head of the National Climatic Data Center
Daniel Jacob - harvard professor
robert dickinson - professor of climatology at georgia tech
David Rind - NASA climatologist, PhD (all of them seem to be PhDs)
David Mote - head climatologist of Washington State
Mt. Pinatuba did not release any meaningful amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from what I can tell. Instead it released 20 million tons of sulfer dioxide. That has nothing to do with manmade CO2 and is a red herring.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/
"Nearly 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide were injected into the stratosphere in Pinatubo's 1991 eruptions, and dispersal of this gas cloud around the world caused global temperatures to drop temporarily (1991 through 1993) by about 1°F (0.5°C)."
-Humans release 150x more CO2 than volcanos
-Mt Pinatuba released SO2, not CO2. It isn't relavant to manmade CO2 production
-The writers of the IPCC report that I picked at random are all either professors or heads of prestigious climatology research groups, and all have PhDs
Last edited:
Lao Tzu
New member
redguru said:
It seems that the reason for that study was to address a criticism of global warming. One of the main criticisms is that temperature increases are due to the sun's rays, and not human activity. That article attempted to investigate that and found that that is not true, but the science is not advanced enough to know for sure.
Lao Tzu
New member
Sassy69 said:
Have you ever seen the manbearpig episode of south park?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqYm2nqmSN4
Sassy69
New member
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
COW POO & COW FARTZ....
Livestock a major threat to environment
Remedies urgently needed
29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?
Surprise!
According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.
Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.
Long shadow
The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40 percent to global agricultural output. For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a source of renewable energy for draft and an essential source of organic fertilizer for their crops.
But such rapid growth exacts a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options. “The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.
When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
Land and water
At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification.
The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.
Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.
Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock’s presence in vast tracts of land and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss; 15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline, with livestock identified as a culprit.
Remedies
The report, which was produced with the support of the multi-institutional Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, proposes explicitly to consider these environmental costs and suggests a number of ways of remedying the situation, including:
Land degradation – controlling access and removing obstacles to mobility on common pastures. Use of soil conservation methods and silvopastoralism, together with controlled livestock exclusion from sensitive areas; payment schemes for environmental services in livestock-based land use to help reduce and reverse land degradation.
Atmosphere and climate – increasing the efficiency of livestock production and feed crop agriculture. Improving animals’ diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, and setting up biogas plant initiatives to recycle manure.
Water – improving the efficiency of irrigation systems. Introducing full-cost pricing for water together with taxes to discourage large-scale livestock concentration close to cities.
These and related questions are the focus of discussions between FAO and its partners meeting to chart the way forward for livestock production at global consultations in Bangkok this week. These discussions also include the substantial public health risks related to the rapid livestock sector growth as, increasingly, animal diseases also affect humans; rapid livestock sector growth can also lead to the exclusion of smallholders from growing markets.
COW POO & COW FARTZ....
Livestock a major threat to environment
Remedies urgently needed
29 November 2006, Rome - Which causes more greenhouse gas emissions, rearing cattle or driving cars?
Surprise!
According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.
Says Henning Steinfeld, Chief of FAO’s Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report: “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
With increased prosperity, people are consuming more meat and dairy products every year. Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes.
Long shadow
The global livestock sector is growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. It provides livelihoods to about 1.3 billion people and contributes about 40 percent to global agricultural output. For many poor farmers in developing countries livestock are also a source of renewable energy for draft and an essential source of organic fertilizer for their crops.
But such rapid growth exacts a steep environmental price, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options. “The environmental costs per unit of livestock production must be cut by one half, just to avoid the level of damage worsening beyond its present level,” it warns.
When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.
And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
Livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, mostly permanent pasture but also including 33 percent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock, the report notes. As forests are cleared to create new pastures, it is a major driver of deforestation, especially in Latin America where, for example, some 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to grazing.
Land and water
At the same time herds cause wide-scale land degradation, with about 20 percent of pastures considered as degraded through overgrazing, compaction and erosion. This figure is even higher in the drylands where inappropriate policies and inadequate livestock management contribute to advancing desertification.
The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs. The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.
Livestock are estimated to be the main inland source of phosphorous and nitrogen contamination of the South China Sea, contributing to biodiversity loss in marine ecosystems.
Meat and dairy animals now account for about 20 percent of all terrestrial animal biomass. Livestock’s presence in vast tracts of land and its demand for feed crops also contribute to biodiversity loss; 15 out of 24 important ecosystem services are assessed as in decline, with livestock identified as a culprit.
Remedies
The report, which was produced with the support of the multi-institutional Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative, proposes explicitly to consider these environmental costs and suggests a number of ways of remedying the situation, including:
Land degradation – controlling access and removing obstacles to mobility on common pastures. Use of soil conservation methods and silvopastoralism, together with controlled livestock exclusion from sensitive areas; payment schemes for environmental services in livestock-based land use to help reduce and reverse land degradation.
Atmosphere and climate – increasing the efficiency of livestock production and feed crop agriculture. Improving animals’ diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, and setting up biogas plant initiatives to recycle manure.
Water – improving the efficiency of irrigation systems. Introducing full-cost pricing for water together with taxes to discourage large-scale livestock concentration close to cities.
These and related questions are the focus of discussions between FAO and its partners meeting to chart the way forward for livestock production at global consultations in Bangkok this week. These discussions also include the substantial public health risks related to the rapid livestock sector growth as, increasingly, animal diseases also affect humans; rapid livestock sector growth can also lead to the exclusion of smallholders from growing markets.
redguru
New member
reno240 said:
So falsifying or fudging research as long as it meets your goals of changing energy sources is a good thing. Ends do not justify Means.
Lao Tzu said:
Lao Tzu, your reference admits it is released carbon not CO2 that was measured in its estimates of human CO2 production. But that it can "infer" amounts of CO2 gas from the amount of carbon.
Lao Tzu said:
Sulfur Dioxide is a noxious gas created by many coal-fired power plants and was the subject of debate in the 90's as it is a prime problem with acid rain. It was proven that the Mt Pinataubo volcano released more Sulfur Dioxide than all power generation stations combined in a single eruption. I rememebered this and related it to the current discussion erroneously.
Lao Tzu said:
The article claimed it was not true but only studied brightness of sun spots to reach that conclusion, All other variables in solar activity were omitted, either intentionally or in the case of cosmic ultraviolet rays because it is hard to model.
Lao Tzu
New member
redguru said:
I'm not ready to assume that all of the claims are premature. I will admit that we don't know enough about climatology. Global dimming was only discovered recently, agriculture releases more greenhouse gases than transportation.
You can't find many/any experts who think human CO2 is not something we need to change. There is debate on how big the risk is, but virtually no one thinks human CO2 production is safe or sustainable.
Lao Tzu
New member
redguru said:
Al Gore represents the extreme of one end of a spectrum. Even if global warming is as dangerous as Al Gore says then humans can and most likely will just (temporarily) reengineer the climate to compensate while we do something about it. Gases like sulfer dioxide can compensate for global warming, so can manmade clouds, airborne nanoparticles or engineered heat vents over the pacific.
Al Gores movie is a worst case scenario. But there is still a general consensus that human acitivty is dangerous and needs to be changed, only debate on how dangerous and how fast we need to change it.
Lao Tzu
New member
Also, no matter what happens with global warming, you can't deny that it has been an impedus that has led humanity to discover some great advances in energy, advances that may've never been made.
efficiency in cars and appliances is constantly going up.
Wind power went from 50 cents a kwh in 1980 down to 3-5 cents today. A new technology called kitegen in Italy claims it can produce energy for 0.1 cents a kwh, 50x cheaper than coal.
Solar went from being 10x more expensive than coal 20 years ago and constantly went down, now reaching half of the price recently, and advances are still coming. By the next decade you should be able to outfit your home with solar for less than a years worth of electric bills.
We are learning to become independent of the middle east.
So no matter what your feelings on global warming, we are entering an age of dirt cheap electricity and transportation fuel costs, which should be great for purchasing power, foreign policy and the economy both at home and internationally.
efficiency in cars and appliances is constantly going up.
Wind power went from 50 cents a kwh in 1980 down to 3-5 cents today. A new technology called kitegen in Italy claims it can produce energy for 0.1 cents a kwh, 50x cheaper than coal.
Solar went from being 10x more expensive than coal 20 years ago and constantly went down, now reaching half of the price recently, and advances are still coming. By the next decade you should be able to outfit your home with solar for less than a years worth of electric bills.
We are learning to become independent of the middle east.
So no matter what your feelings on global warming, we are entering an age of dirt cheap electricity and transportation fuel costs, which should be great for purchasing power, foreign policy and the economy both at home and internationally.
rollindirty
Banned
Lao Tzu said:
global warming has had nothing to do with the increasing efficiency or the trend to foster a decreasing dependence on oil.
The efficiency of cars was spurred by the oil embargo in the 1970s and the high cost of gas. That was the ONLY reason that cars got higher MPG and the reason that Japan became a world leader in manufacturing autos.
The research going on to develop alt fuels is being driven by the need to stop funding terrorist nations, period.
Lao Tzu
New member
rollindirty said:
Nope. Much of it is done because of global warming. Even Bush has admitted to such things.
There is no benefit to solar and wind power if you don't believe in global warming, but they are still being funded. And ethanol is a carbon neutral fuel source, hence the heavy funding to it.
rollindirty
Banned
Lao Tzu said:
Fuel efficiency programs were put in place during Carter, in 1979, there was no idea of global warming to any degree in 1979. The changes were in direct relation to the oil embargo, period.
Solar and wind power (and all other alt fuel research) is all realted to stopping our dependence on foreign oil due to the terrorism fight, period.
Global warming is no significan incentive to alt. fuel, there is an incentive to stop funding terror nations. That is the incentive, not global warming.
slat1
New member
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural, Moderate
Tuesday January 30, 2007
Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.
Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.
The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.
“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.
The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.
Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.
Tuesday January 30, 2007
Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.
Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.
The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.
“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.
The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.
Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.
jestro
New member
In the paper today it came out the white house was strong arming federal scientists about global warming.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html
Lao Tzu
New member
redguru said:
Yup. People like Al Gore get money from green orgs and present misleading worst case scenarios, people like Singer get money from oil companies and present misleading best case scenario. But fundamentally there is no debate on whether manmade greenhouse gases are a bad idea or dangerous, just debate on how bad and what we need to do to correct for them.
Sassy69
New member
Global warming is a "problem" just like poverty, hunger, crime & illiteracy. We've been aware of those for years. The earth has gone thru several climate changes over the centuries. Much of it is just natural cyclic processes. There's no denying we've had impact on things, but when was the last time you heard about acid rain? Or any of the stuff that people were freaking out about 20 yrs ago?
Is there a point to a "documentary" that shows a worst case scenario, and done by a "was" politician? If its only supposed to be a "worst case scenario" why did it scare the shit out of my parents - two well-educated conservative and very grounded mid-westerners? That starts to smell more like political propaganda to me.
My point being -- if we all agree its an issue, why don't we start moving in the direction of optimization of our energy use and production? Why do we have politicians who claim to be "green" but drive SUVs (and apparently are supporting terrorists while they do that)? It would be so nice & oh, so much more productive if we could get past the fear mongering in order to manipulate people and just do the right thing?
Is there a point to a "documentary" that shows a worst case scenario, and done by a "was" politician? If its only supposed to be a "worst case scenario" why did it scare the shit out of my parents - two well-educated conservative and very grounded mid-westerners? That starts to smell more like political propaganda to me.
My point being -- if we all agree its an issue, why don't we start moving in the direction of optimization of our energy use and production? Why do we have politicians who claim to be "green" but drive SUVs (and apparently are supporting terrorists while they do that)? It would be so nice & oh, so much more productive if we could get past the fear mongering in order to manipulate people and just do the right thing?
Lao Tzu
New member
Sassy69 said:
Issues like acid rain and CFCs went away because we took action. They weren't an overhyped conspiracy that just came to nothing, they were a legitimate threat and we took action to deal with them. Claiming that the issues we freaked out about 20 years ago show global warming is overhyped is the opposite attitude of what I have. THe reason CFCs and acid rain are down is because we took them seriously and we took action. SO2 levels dropped by 50% between 1970 and 2000 in the US, hence less acid rain.
Al Gore actually lives a carbon neutral lifestyle. He uses carbon, but he invests money in green certificates which negate his personal impact.
The earth goes through climate changes, but most are incredibly traumatic and horrific. Any of those changes would immediately do hundreds of trillions of dollars in economic & infrastructure damage and set back human progress by decades so anything we are doing to help encourage one of those changes is an issue we need to take very seriously.
The fear mongering grabs people's attention more than anything. We are fundamentally monkeys who respond to visceral threats, the concept of being logical creatures arose very late in our evolution. And action is being taken on global warming, and has been. Al Gore just raises awareness on the issue.
